Skip to main content

Military Tribunals – Frederick Charles STEWART

Frederick Charles STEWART
Market gardening

First Hearing

Date of Hearing
21 Feb 1916
Case for exemption
The Recruiting Officer claimed that Frederick Stewart was not engaged in a certified occupation. Stewart’s father said his son was in his employ. He (the father) was a market gardener and coal merchant. He had lost three men, and had only a boy now, except the man who went in the coal cart. He had 10½ acres of market garden ground. He had two horses, one of which was employed in the coal business. The Tribunal decided that it was not in the national interest that the man should be retained in civil employment.
Outcome of appeal
Journal Date
26 Feb 1916

Second Hearing

Date of Hearing
28 Feb 1916
Outcome of appeal
Appeal not considered
Journal Date
4 Mar 1916

Third Hearing

Date of Hearing
4 Apr 1916 (Worcestershire Appeals Tribunal)
Case for exemption
Mr F Stewart, Badsey, appealed for his son. Mr Stewart is a coal merchant and market gardener with 10 acres of land, and has had bad health, and he said he wanted his son to look after the land as he was now unable to do so. Applicant said women could not cut asparagus.
Outcome of appeal
Exemption - temporary
Exemption Conditions (if any)
Till 30 June
Journal Date
8 Apr 1916

Fourth Hearing

Date of Hearing
20 Jun 1916
Case for exemption
Mr Roberts appeared for Frederick Stewart, who appealed for his son, Frederick Charles Stewart, Badsey, saying he had eleven children besides this son. He claimed conditional exemption, and said he had 10 acres of land. He had between 600 and 700 pots of fruit out of his orchard last year. In addition to his market gardening business, he had a small coal business, and a man aged 49 to look after it. His wife was an invalid, and personally he had undergone two operations, and could not do half the work he used to do; he only wished he could. His son was his working foreman. In reply to Lieut. Glanfield, he said his son had done a bit of “skimming” for other people lately, because they had no one to do it for them. Appellant added: “You have got to do something when you have eleven children to keep; you have something on your plate, I can tell you. (Laughter). If women were to have the management of tomatoes they would spoil the lot if there wasn’t somebody there to look after them.”
Outcome of appeal
Appeal dismissed
Journal Date
24 Jun 1916

Other Information

Final Outcome
Enlisted after temporary exemption
War Service (if enlisted)
Labour Corps Agricultural Company